Colorado Events: Past Present and Future

[Elginb]

All those maps look good to me. It occurs to me that not everyone may know what the formats are, so below are the descriptions I copied from the Albuquerque NHSD set-up.

As for a 4th Kill 'em all map... how about we turn one HOB map into a Kill e'm all map? Technically, they're both Kill 'em all, afterall. Another thought might be that we bring one map for each format, then let all other maps come from the map building contest...

One suggestion with regard to formats is that, instead of using the "Supreme Leader" Card in There Can Be Only One! that we get to choose a unique hero on our team to represent a general that our opponents would have to kill in order to win-- it would be more a "Kill the General" game, which is something I've played before with friends. Then we wouldn't have to worry about introducing a whole new type of figure into the game.

Another suggestion is that for the Escape! format, we let each player use their full 750 point alotment of figures, since we're liable to only have one map of that sort.

For formats that will have multiple maps, we should definitely consider having some for small armies and some for large armies.

Anyway, just some thoughts. See below for descriptions of the formats...

**********

1. Standard HS tournament scenario.
-Destroy all of your opponent's figures. Standard HS Scoring will be used if time runs out. (in our case, we're using Rolling Rumble format, so no time limits)
2. There Can Be Only One!
-Each player has a Supreme Leader that they must protect. First player to destroy the opponent's Supreme Leader wins. Players will be provided with a Supreme Leader figure and card for this scenario.
-Supreme Leader Card:


3. Heat of Battle.
-There are no starting zones; players will take turns placing one card's worth of units anywhere on the battlefield except on glyphs. Figures cannot be placed adjacent to any enemy figures while there are spaces available that are not adjacent to enemy figures. Destroy all of your opponent's figures. Standard HS Scoring will be used if time runs out.

4. Capture the Flag.
-Each player will have a Brandar Glyph to defend just outside of their start zone, and can win by ending a turn with one of their figures un-engaged and on the opponent's Glyph. Player's can move their figures onto their own glyph to defend it.

5. Escape!
-Players are to trying exit as many of their figures off of the opponent's starting zone as possible. It takes 1 Move to exit from an outside space located in the Opponent's starting zone. Victory Points are based on full cards of figures exited off the board and full cards of destroyed enemy figures. The game ends when either the time runs out or when one player has no figures remaining on the board. The player with the highest Victory Points at the end of the game wins.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Elginb

As for a 4th Kill 'em all map... how about we turn one HOB map into a Kill e'm all map? Technically, they're both Kill 'em all, afterall.

That would be fine by me. Again, I don't really want to take up too much time discussing this until we have a better sense of the attendance numbers.

Originally Posted by Elginb

Another thought might be that we bring one map for each format, then let all other maps come from the map building contest...

I'm honestly a little leery about using map building contest maps for anything other than HoB. Heat of Battle placement can go a long way towards smoothing out the oddities of a map.

Originally Posted by Elginb

One suggestion with regard to formats is that, instead of using the "Supreme Leader" Card in There Can Be Only One! that we get to choose a unique hero on our team to represent a general that our opponents would have to kill in order to win-- it would be more a "Kill the General" game, which is something I've played before with friends. Then we wouldn't have to worry about introducing a whole new type of figure into the game.

That can be a fun format, too, and versions of it were played at Gencon ("big 'ol monster battle" and "Dragon Wars). But it's very different than TCBOO, and it creates a strong incentive to include a very tough hero in your army. It would definitely change my draft pool decisions a lot. Whether you think that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, but I'm inclined against it.

One thing worth noting is that the Supreme Leader's personality sort of screws 4th Mass and Sacred Band armies.

Originally Posted by Elginb

Another suggestion is that for the Escape! format, we let each player use their full 750 point alotment of figures, since we're liable to only have one map of that sort.

I had the exact same idea, but I'm not sure I like it. It takes the whole drafting element out of it, which seems unfortunate.

I'm sort of torn on what kind of map would be most fun for "Escape!" I'm pretty sure I'd hate playing it on a map like "Just Passing Through", where keeping figures out of your zone is ridiculously hard. I think my inclination would be to play it on a map like "Separation Anxiety", where there is an opportunity both for an agressive escaping strategy, and a more traditional killing strategy. At the far extreme would be a map like "Marr Highway", where the "Escape!" rules would be almost an afterthought for most figures.

Originally Posted by Elginb

For formats that will have multiple maps, we should definitely consider having some for small armies and some for large armies.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Elginb

3. Heat of Battle.
-There are no starting zones; players will take turns placing one card's worth of units anywhere on the battlefield except on glyphs. Figures cannot be placed adjacent to any enemy figures while there are spaces available that are not adjacent to enemy figures. Destroy all of your opponent's figures. Standard HS Scoring will be used if time runs out.

I've been thinking that we could possibly mix the placement and drafting process together in Heat of Battle, but I haven't come up with a specific process that I really like, yet.

Originally Posted by Elginb

5. Escape!
-Players are to trying exit as many of their figures off of the opponent's starting zone as possible. It takes 1 Move to exit from an outside space located in the Opponent's starting zone. Victory Points are based on full cards of figures exited off the board and full cards of destroyed enemy figures. The game ends when either the time runs out or when one player has no figures remaining on the board. The player with the highest Victory Points at the end of the game wins.

I think full card scoring makes sense for heroes, given the nature of the scenario. But I think we should use partial scoring for squads. It's not that hard to calculate and it means that a partially destroyed squad still has some incentive to escape rather than just fight to the death.

[Elginb]

Originally Posted by dok

I'm honestly a little leery about using map building contest maps for anything other than HoB. Heat of Battle placement can go a long way towards smoothing out the oddities of a map.

That's fair.

Originally Posted by dok

That can be a fun format, too, and versions of it were played at Gencon ("big 'ol monster battle" and "Dragon Wars). But it's very different than TCBOO, and it creates a strong incentive to include a very tough hero in your army. It would definitely change my draft pool decisions a lot. Whether you think that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, but I'm inclined against it.

One thing worth noting is that the Supreme Leader's personality sort of screws 4th Mass and Sacred Band armies.

One thing I like about this type of format, broadly speaking, is that it's so similar to Chess. Of course, in Chess, the King is relatively weak compared to other figures. We could get around the "very tough hero" issue by simply saying the "General" would have to be a hero that costs 80 or fewer points. Personally, I think Marcu or Isamu might be the best options under those circumstances, and they wouldn't unduly influence one's army composition. That would also solve the 4th Mass/Sacred Band issue.

Originally Posted by dok

I had the exact same idea, but I'm not sure I like it. It takes the whole drafting element out of it, which seems unfortunate.

I'm sort of torn on what kind of map would be most fun for "Escape!" I'm pretty sure I'd hate playing it on a map like "Just Passing Through", where keeping figures out of your zone is ridiculously hard. I think my inclination would be to play it on a map like "Separation Anxiety", where there is an opportunity both for an agressive escaping strategy, and a more traditional killing strategy. At the far extreme would be a map like "Marr Highway", where the "Escape!" rules would be almost an afterthought for most figures.

I haven't had a chance to look at maps, but it strikes me that this format would be perfect for a lava map-- you need to keep moving, anyway, right?

As for using the full 750 point army-- I don't mind if one map goes without counter-drafting. Though it occurs to me that requiring 750 point armies with this format would discourage folks from using the Marro Hive, a unit which wouldn't work for obvious reasons. So perhaps the maximum possible army size for Escape! should be 590 points to avoid that situation.

Here's a side thought-- instead of assigning army sizes to maps ahead of time, we might let the players roll a 20-sider at the beginning of their game:

roll 1-4 = 300 points;
roll 5-10 = 450 points;
roll 10-15 = 520 points
roll 16-19 = 650 points;
roll 20 = 750 points.

Originally Posted by dok

I've been thinking that we could possibly mix the placement and drafting process together in Heat of Battle, but I haven't come up with a specific process that I really like, yet.

Well, I don't think it would be any different than typical drafting and placement-- you roll a 20-sider to decide who drafts first, then alternate and you place your figures as you draft each army card. I guess I don't see what problem there would be.

Originally Posted by dok

I think full card scoring makes sense for heroes, given the nature of the scenario. But I think we should use partial scoring for squads. It's not that hard to calculate and it means that a partially destroyed squad still has some incentive to escape rather than just fight to the death.

That sounds reasonable to me.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Elginb

One thing I like about this type of format, broadly speaking, is that it's so similar to Chess. Of course, in Chess, the King is relatively weak compared to other figures. We could get around the "very tough hero" issue by simply saying the "General" would have to be a hero that costs 80 or fewer points. Personally, I think Marcu or Isamu might be the best options under those circumstances, and they wouldn't unduly influence one's army composition.

Maybe, although I'd also consider throwing Concan into a 4th Mass army just for TCBOO. I'd also consider just using Raelin if she were in my army anyway - 5 life and 3 defense is nice. (Good thing you didn't say 90 points, or it would be Ne-Gok-Sa city.)

This seems like a neat idea to me, although I do sort of like the TCBOO Supreme Leader, too. (Now that you mention it... if we only have a couple TCBOO games, maybe we can use kings in stead of pawns for the supreme leaders? You know, just 'cause.)

My point wasn't that having Charos as your "supreme leader" is such a bad thing - just that that's where your first rule idea would lead people.

Originally Posted by Elginb

That would also solve the 4th Mass/Sacred Band issue.

Another solution to the Supreme Leader problem occurred to me - we could make the leader's personality "adaptable", and add a power "adaptable personality" that says the leader's personality may be chosen by the player at the beginning of the game. Simple enough.

Originally Posted by Elginb

I haven't had a chance to look at maps, but it strikes me that this format would be perfect for a lava map-- you need to keep moving, anyway, right?

My instinct runs the other way - i.e. that this is sort of a waste of the lava terrain. The lava rules make you move, but you won't really care on this map because you want to move anyway. That's why I like lava in Heat of Battle - in HoB you might never have to move at all, so lava forces you to play more dynamically.

Now that you mention this, though, it makes me thing that I'd be more inclined to go the other way in Escape - put nice jungle cover or high points on the map that tempt players to camp, only their opponent can foil the strategy by avoiding the entrenched position and escaping the map.

Originally Posted by Elginb

As for using the full 750 point army-- I don't mind if one map goes without counter-drafting. Though it occurs to me that requiring 750 point armies with this format would discourage folks from using the Marro Hive, a unit which wouldn't work for obvious reasons. So perhaps the maximum possible army size for Escape! should be 590 points to avoid that situation.

I guess the other issue I have with very large army sizes is that I think your full 750 points should be able to go well over 24 hexes, but I'd rather restrict played armies to 24 hexes.

590 works fine by me, though, so I don't think we really disagree here.

Originally Posted by Elginb

Here's a side thought-- instead of assigning army sizes to maps ahead of time, we might let the players roll a 20-sider at the beginning of their game:

roll 1-4 = 300 points;
roll 5-10 = 450 points;
roll 10-15 = 520 points
roll 16-19 = 650 points;
roll 20 = 750 points.

We could do that, but I sort of like the idea of customizing the point values on each map based on how those maps play. Also, it's an extra layer of complication for the players.

Still, one thing I like here is that you're (implicitly) suggesting only 5 different point levels. I think this is a good idea. Players shouldn't have to plan for 12 different point levels - we'll just end up with lots of filler units in every army, which is sort of lame. (Unless we want to allow partial common squad drafting.)

Originally Posted by Elginb

Well, I don't think it would be any different than typical drafting and placement-- you roll a 20-sider to decide who drafts first, then alternate and you place your figures as you draft each army card. I guess I don't see what problem there would be.

Oh no, there's no problem. I was just idly speculating about whether it's better to do all the drafting first, then all the placement, or combine drafting and placement like you suggest, or some combination of the two. I can't decide what I like best.

[Elginb]

Originally Posted by dok

Maybe, although I'd also consider throwing Concan into a 4th Mass army just for TCBOO. I'd also consider just using Raelin if she were in my army anyway - 5 life and 3 defense is nice. (Good thing you didn't say 90 points, or it would be Ne-Gok-Sa city.)

This seems like a neat idea to me, although I do sort of like the TCBOO Supreme Leader, too. (Now that you mention it... if we only have a couple TCBOO games, maybe we can use kings in stead of pawns for the supreme leaders? You know, just 'cause.)

My point wasn't that having Charos as your "supreme leader" is such a bad thing - just that that's where your first rule idea would lead people.

I'm not sure exactly what it is that I don't like about the Supreme Leader. Maybe it's just that it's adding a completely new figure to the game-- from a preparation standpoint, I think it would be much easier to practice with units we already know. Then again, from an aesthetic standpoint, the idea of mixing Chess pieces with Heroscape pieces isn't too appealing to me (maybe if we had some finely crafted Chess miniatures that were the same scale as Heroscape).

One reason I proposed 80 point (or cheaper) Heroes was because I figured most armies would probably already have a Hero within that price range. Raelin could be commonly fielded, and I figure she's a natural since she's a big target, anyway. I don't mind people choosing figures like Charos, but I think your point that it might unduly influence army composition is a good one-- 80 points is easy to work with in just about any army pool.

Originally Posted by dok

Another solution to the Supreme Leader problem occurred to me - we could make the leader's personality "adaptable", and add a power "adaptable personality" that says the leader's personality may be chosen by the player at the beginning of the game. Simple enough.

Yeah, if we go with the Supreme Leader, that sounds good.

Originally Posted by dok

My instinct runs the other way - i.e. that this is sort of a waste of the lava terrain. The lava rules make you move, but you won't really care on this map because you want to move anyway. That's why I like lava in Heat of Battle - in HoB you might never have to move at all, so lava forces you to play more dynamically.

Now that you mention this, though, it makes me thing that I'd be more inclined to go the other way in Escape - put nice jungle cover or high points on the map that tempt players to camp, only their opponent can foil the strategy by avoiding the entrenched position and escaping the map.

I don't think lava would be an afterthought in this format. You can trap people in lava by camping out on the edge of it, or by engaging folks in or near it. I think, more than anything, it would force players to make tough choices and encourage them to take risks. I could see an escape game easily turn into a kill 'em all game if there's not something putting a fire under their butts. I guess I'll just need to find a lava map that I think is suitable and make a case for it then...

I do like the idea of lava maps for HOB. A map with islands and lots of water might be interesting, too. But, you know, I'd like to give both HOB maps to the winner and runner-up of the Map Building Contest-- I think it's nice for folks to get their own maps into the tournament some how.

Originally Posted by dok

I guess the other issue I have with very large army sizes is that I think your full 750 points should be able to go well over 24 hexes, but I'd rather restrict played armies to 24 hexes.

590 works fine by me, though, so I don't think we really disagree here.

Yeah, 24 hexes is a nice sweet spot, but you can put together some really nice 750 point armies that fit into 24 hexes-- it would encourage people to pick some high-cost/low-hex units that don't normally get played, too. But what are we shooting for? You could potentially build a 300 point army that fills 24 spaces...

Originally Posted by dok

We could do that, but I sort of like the idea of customizing the point values on each map based on how those maps play. Also, it's an extra layer of complication for the players.

Still, one thing I like here is that you're (implicitly) suggesting only 5 different point levels. I think this is a good idea. Players shouldn't have to plan for 12 different point levels - we'll just end up with lots of filler units in every army, which is sort of lame. (Unless we want to allow partial common squad drafting.)

I'm okay with customizing the point values on each map-- as always, I'm trying to add more variety (but we have plenty of that already). So, which 5 army sizes should we choose? I think we need to have 520 points in there, just because that was popular with the Rocky Mountain Rumble. Now, if we're customizing the point values for the maps, then why not allow for one 750 point army map that has a slightly bigger start zone?

Originally Posted by dok

Oh no, there's no problem. I was just idly speculating about whether it's better to do all the drafting first, then all the placement, or combine drafting and placement like you suggest, or some combination of the two. I can't decide what I like best.

Well, if we haven't decided by January 16th, we'll just flip a coin Personally, I don't think it matters too much-- usually the start zones are far enough away that card-by-card placement isn't going to make too much strategic difference; I'm just used to playing that way. It would certainly be quicker to draft, then place your figures whereever you want in the start-zone after completing the draft. The only exception I can think of is if we use split start zones-- then it really does matter what order your place your figures; same with HOB. So maybe for consistency's sake, we should just place figures as we draft.

Okay, in other news, how do you think the different formats will play lenghtwise? If I were to rank the formats from fastest to slowest, this is how I would rank them:

1) Capture the Flag
2) HOB
3) Supreme Leader/Kill the General
4) Escape!
5) Kill 'em all

I bring this up because we should probably consider it when determining army sizes and map construction. I would think we'd want to lean toward larger armies or slower maps for those formats higher on the list and smaller armies or faster maps for those formats lower on the list. What do you think?

[Cyborgs Gaming]

the only army that would really be hurt by the supreme leaders personality is the 4th mass army. Disciplined armies can use parmenio to change the supreme leaders personality if need be. The 4th mass is already one of, if not the most powerfull squad in Heroscape. It is ridiculous to even thing about changing the supreme leaders personality just to make the 4th mass more powerfull than it already is. I don't think one way or the other about using the supreme leader, but if he is used, his personality should not be adaptibale. it would be differnt if by changing it, it helped out a weak figure, but why on earth would you think it needs to be changed to help an already over powered unit? Just make sure that everyone knows that in that scenario that the 4th mass won't get that bonus.

I will see what I can do about making it to this event, since I won't be able to go to the other event on my Birthday . I don't see it happening though because that would be 2 saturdays in a row I would miss my normal job, without having any vacation time.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I will be able to attend in March. I'm still having my tuesday night events, but I have not had a decent attendance yet.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Elginb

I'm not sure exactly what it is that I don't like about the Supreme Leader. Maybe it's just that it's adding a completely new figure to the game-- from a preparation standpoint, I think it would be much easier to practice with units we already know. Then again, from an aesthetic standpoint, the idea of mixing Chess pieces with Heroscape pieces isn't too appealing to me (maybe if we had some finely crafted Chess miniatures that were the same scale as Heroscape).

Fair enough. I'm fine with dropping the TCBOO format in favor of more CTF or Kill 'em all, or some sort of kill the general/dragon/monster format.

Originally Posted by Elginb

One reason I proposed 80 point (or cheaper) Heroes was because I figured most armies would probably already have a Hero within that price range. Raelin could be commonly fielded, and I figure she's a natural since she's a big target, anyway. I don't mind people choosing figures like Charos, but I think your point that it might unduly influence army composition is a good one-- 80 points is easy to work with in just about any army pool.

Yes, I see what you're saying... although four armies out of 14 didn't have a hero that cheap last time, including your own.

One other option would be to provide a hero for that format. So, say, everyone gets a Kyntela for that battle, and it's "kill the princess".

If the hero is from your army, then that's going to influence army selection, no matter what the point cutoff is.

Originally Posted by Elginb

I don't think lava would be an afterthought in this format. You can trap people in lava by camping out on the edge of it, or by engaging folks in or near it. I think, more than anything, it would force players to make tough choices and encourage them to take risks.

You're right that I'm overstating things when I say it would be an afterthought. But I think the effects of lava would be less than usual, since armies already have a strong incentive to advance.

Originally Posted by Elginb

I could see an escape game easily turn into a kill 'em all game if there's not something putting a fire under their butts.

Well, it's somewhat army dependent. Some armies (WTF armies, armies that depend on non-bonding aura figures) are at a disadvantage if they need to stay on the move, so they might elect to just play the game in a more standard fashion and try to win on kills. On the other hand, some armies would see the easiest path to victory being cashing their figures in, rather than killing their opponents.

If our game last time had been "Escape!", you might have just tried to fly around the edges... which would have forced me to leave Raelin's aura to engage, which would have opened my figures up to attack... it would have played differently, don't you think? Or imagine trying to beat Seth's Charos/Cyprien/Kyrie army in Escape... he's probably just going to fly by and get out of town. Taking that strategy to its extreme, a Hulk+Silver Surfer could be almost unbeatable in Escape.

Originally Posted by Elginb

I'm okay with customizing the point values on each map-- as always, I'm trying to add more variety (but we have plenty of that already). So, which 5 army sizes should we choose? I think we need to have 520 points in there, just because that was popular with the Rocky Mountain Rumble. Now, if we're customizing the point values for the maps, then why not allow for one 750 point army map that has a slightly bigger start zone?

Hmm... 5 army sizes? I don't have strong opionions, although I don't really like using all 750.

I'd say something like...

590
555
520
460
400

I just started with 590, 520, and 400, and put another level halfway between each. I'm open to another set of 5, but that seems like a nice one that allows for a lot of variation and counter-drafting.

Originally Posted by Elginb

Well, if we haven't decided by January 16th, we'll just flip a coin Personally, I don't think it matters too much-- usually the start zones are far enough away that card-by-card placement isn't going to make too much strategic difference; I'm just used to playing that way. It would certainly be quicker to draft, then place your figures whereever you want in the start-zone after completing the draft. The only exception I can think of is if we use split start zones-- then it really does matter what order your place your figures; same with HOB. So maybe for consistency's sake, we should just place figures as we draft.

Yeah, I was really only talking about HoB - it doesn't really matter aside from that. I'm fine with placing as we draft, I was just trying to figure if I liked that more, or liked drafting the whole army and then taking turns placing after that.

Originally Posted by Elginb

Okay, in other news, how do you think the different formats will play lenghtwise? If I were to rank the formats from fastest to slowest, this is how I would rank them:

1) Capture the Flag
2) HOB
3) Supreme Leader/Kill the General
4) Escape!
5) Kill 'em all

I disagree with you on Escape and CTF. I'd rate it:

1) Escape!
2) HoB
3a) Kill the General
3b) Supreme Leader
4) Capture the Flag
5) Kill 'em All

Armies with a lot of speed or high-point heroes can end an Escape game really quickly just by getting off the board. HoB is pretty quick, of course. Kill the General depends on the General, of course, but plenty of figures are vulnerable to assasination. The Supreme Leader is relatively tough. CTF is sort of like supreme leader, except you can put another figure on the glyph if the one holding it dies.

Originally Posted by Elginb

I bring this up because we should probably consider it when determining army sizes and map construction. I would think we'd want to lean toward larger armies or slower maps for those formats higher on the list and smaller armies or faster maps for those formats lower on the list. What do you think?

Agreed.

[Elginb]

1) I guess I've just played the version where you pick your own general before, and I know it's a fun way to play. There's a wide variety of heroes to choose from and a wide variety of armies to build around your chosen general. If you have a strong objection to playing that format, then we shouldn't do it. But otherwise, is it okay if we go ahead with the pick-your-own-general/kill-the-general format?

2) I'm not married to using a lava map for "Escape!" and it sounds like you have a strong preference for a different kind of map-- no problem. Now, are there any maps that have start-zones with fewer start-zone spaces on the edges?

3) Army Sizes: I'd like to see more extreme point variation and maybe only 4 army sizes; something like: 600, 520, 450, 380-- Those size armies are guaranteed to play differently. I pick 380 as the low size, just because it allows someone to exclude the Hulk if he's in their 750 point pool; also, the 590 point limit I suggested earlier was only for "Escape!"-- otherwise, I'm fine with using larger point values. That being said, I think that the majority of the maps should be 520 or 450.

4) I see what you mean about "Capture the Flag"-- I'm used to playing it where you can't put your figures on your own flag (maybe we should try it that way?). Still, with "Escape!", an army full of expensive heroes might have an advantage (though I'm not convinced of that-- they activate more slowly and get killed by squads quicker than they kill them, in general), it certainly wouldn't be an advantage when playing kill 'em all games, so it balances out from an overall tournament perspective (even with a 750 point pool). Personally, I'm more concerned right now that the Glad/Blast combo is one that would dominate in all these formats. For that reason, I think our map selection should include some maps that cause Glad/Blasts fits...

[dok]

Originally Posted by Elginb

1) I guess I've just played the version where you pick your own general before, and I know it's a fun way to play. There's a wide variety of heroes to choose from and a wide variety of armies to build around your chosen general. If you have a strong objection to playing that format, then we shouldn't do it. But otherwise, is it okay if we go ahead with the pick-your-own-general/kill-the-general format?

No strong objections. I'll just note that any "pick a general out of your army" formats will affect army selections, whether there's a point cap as well or not.

Originally Posted by Elginb

2) I'm not married to using a lava map for "Escape!" and it sounds like you have a strong preference for a different kind of map-- no problem. Now, are there any maps that have start-zones with fewer start-zone spaces on the edges?

There's certainly some variation, but I'm not sure we should focus on that. As long as it's a reasonably long map, there should be a chance to engage opposing figures before they make an exit.

Originally Posted by Elginb

3) Army Sizes: I'd like to see more extreme point variation and maybe only 4 army sizes; something like: 600, 520, 450, 380-- Those size armies are guaranteed to play differently. I pick 380 as the low size, just because it allows someone to exclude the Hulk if he's in their 750 point pool; also, the 590 point limit I suggested earlier was only for "Escape!"-- otherwise, I'm fine with using larger point values. That being said, I think that the majority of the maps should be 520 or 450.

That all sounds fine by me.

Originally Posted by Elginb

4) I see what you mean about "Capture the Flag"-- I'm used to playing it where you can't put your figures on your own flag (maybe we should try it that way?).

I prefer being able to guard your flag, personally. I don't think it makes an enormous difference either way, though.

Originally Posted by Elginb

Still, with "Escape!", an army full of expensive heroes might have an advantage (though I'm not convinced of that-- they activate more slowly and get killed by squads quicker than they kill them, in general),

Sure, but an army of, say, Hulk+Cyprien can just cruise through the map and exit all 520 points right away, and since they get full card scoring, that's a guaranteed victory unless you can manage a kill.

Originally Posted by Elginb

it certainly wouldn't be an advantage when playing kill 'em all games, so it balances out from an overall tournament perspective (even with a 750 point pool).

Agreed. I don't think it's a big deal, although the potential for someone to score a cheap win that way is part of the reason I don't particularly like that format.

Originally Posted by Elginb

Personally, I'm more concerned right now that the Glad/Blast combo is one that would dominate in all these formats. For that reason, I think our map selection should include some maps that cause Glad/Blasts fits...

While Glad/Blast is obviously great, I don't see how these formats are really much more favorable to it than regular kill-em-all is. I'm also not sure how you can contain the 'trons with a map... I guess lots of roads and lots of choke points is hard for them, but even on maps like that they do OK.

The one format that is bad for 'trons is heat of battle. Unless your opponent is really short on cards,the blasties can get engaged at the start, which breaks the synergy behind the build.

[Elginb]

Originally Posted by dok

No strong objections. I'll just note that any "pick a general out of your army" formats will affect army selections, whether there's a point cap as well or not.

I agree, but all of the formats will affect army selections to some degree. The question is, how much is too much? I'll let you decide: should we allow folks to select any unique hero as their general? Or should we say 80 points or less? I'm fine either way.

Originally Posted by dok

There's certainly some variation, but I'm not sure we should focus on that. As long as it's a reasonably long map, there should be a chance to engage opposing figures before they make an exit.

Sounds good.

Originally Posted by dok

That all sounds fine by me.

After sleeping on it, I'm thinking 590 probably is a better upper limit-- it's always good to have the option to exclude the Hive. So 590, 520, 450 and 380. Let's consider this settled, then.

Originally Posted by dok

I prefer being able to guard your flag, personally. I don't think it makes an enormous difference either way, though.

Okay, so we'll allow figures to sit on their flag. That's settled, too.

Originally Posted by dok

Sure, but an army of, say, Hulk+Cyprien can just cruise through the map and exit all 520 points right away, and since they get full card scoring, that's a guaranteed victory unless you can manage a kill.

Agreed. I don't think it's a big deal, although the potential for someone to score a cheap win that way is part of the reason I don't particularly like that format.

Well, is there a way to fix the format so it's more manageable? How about we take away the condition that the game ends as soon as one army has no figures left on the baord, but rather when all armies have no figures on the baord? That way, if you zip off the board without killing enough of your opponents' figures, you might be hurting your chances to win.

Or, what if we limited the number of spaces you could actually exit? We could designate some Glyphs of Brandar as the exit spots and allow you to sit on the one in your own start zone. So then it would be like "Capture the Flag", but with more flags. If we only have one "Escape!" map, I have enough Brandar Glyphs to put, say, four or five (or one, if we want to make it really tough) in each start zone.

Originally Posted by dok

While Glad/Blast is obviously great, I don't see how these formats are really much more favorable to it than regular kill-em-all is. I'm also not sure how you can contain the 'trons with a map... I guess lots of roads and lots of choke points is hard for them, but even on maps like that they do OK.

The one format that is bad for 'trons is heat of battle. Unless your opponent is really short on cards,the blasties can get engaged at the start, which breaks the synergy behind the build.

The reason I see the Glad/Blast combo as being favorable is because "Capture the Flag", "Kill the General" and "Escape!" are all about controlling the board, which the Gladiatrons excel at (consider that a Hulk/Cyprien combo would have fits winning "Escape!" against the BlastaGlads). Maps that might mitigate their dominance would be ones with extreme height changes (castle maps) or with lots of choppy terrain (lots of water, heavy snow, etc.).

[Elginb]

I think this map would make a particularly interesting Capture the Flag map (maybe for 520 point armies?). The split start zones would really add strategy to flag placement.
Can't See the Jungle…



I think this one would be great for Kill the General (maybe 450 pts?). The choice between the two high grounds would make for interesting decision-making on where to move your General.
Embattled Fen



This is a map I really enjoy. I'd like to submit it as a Kill 'em all map (520 point armies?). It plays really fast, but it's really fun.
Fire Isles

[Elginb]

It would be nice to have an ice map. This one could be good for a Kill 'em all format for 450 point armies.

Frozen Tempest
Element: Snow
Construction: 1 RotV MS, 1 TT, 1 RttFF


Also, I didn't get a chance to play Swamp Helix by dok at the last tournament. I figure that would be a good Kill 'em all map (maybe 380 point armies?).